thus far we have come inside this...

September/October 2015

Inside this issue:

Thus Far We Have Come Does Collective Bargaining Matter?

1 - 3 3 - 6

Tales from the Unionside Letter to the Editor

7- 8 8 -9

AFT Benefits

Application

AFT Officers

10 11

12

Thus Far We Have Come

We’re on theWeb! www.aftlonestar.org

E-mail:

[email protected]

Join AFT Lone Star

Call: 281-889-1009

With the start of the fall semester, the Lone Star College System marks the beginning of its second year with Dr. Steve Head serving as Chancel-lor. What a difference a year makes! Since its founding in 1980, AFT Lone Star College has been a consis-tent voice for change—raising issues that affect employees and students alike and making practical recom-mendations that we believe will make a difference. Sometimes those recommendations are made behind the scenes, but many times we have publicly addressed them in the pages of The Advocate and in public ad-dresses to the Lone Star Board of Trustees. At times in our history, that input has been welcomed by the col-lege administration of the day—at other times, not so much. In recent years, the AFT has raised its collec-tive voice in these pages about a number of significant issues that im-pact the Lone Star family. Dr. Head and the current Board, chaired by Trustee Linda Good, have addressed many of these issues vigorously. The changes made in only a year are im-pressive. In this article, we’d like to review some of the issues the AFT has raised and the steps the Chancellor and the Board have taken to address them.

Grievance Policy Any time people work together, some disagreements are bound to arise. Occasionally, disagreements occur between an employee and his or her supervisor and, sometimes, those disagreements escalate into harmful conflicts. Institutions write grievance policies to provide an ave-nue for review and appeal in such cases. The grievance policy that had existed within the Lone Star System was ineffective at best and downright counterproductive at worst. Some employees seemed to merit lesser rights than others. Employees were denied the right to have a repre-sentative help them in grievance pro-ceedings, which the AFT maintained was a violation of state law. The fo-cus of the process was on the punish-ment of employees, which some-times resulted in the protection of workplace bullies. This problem was compounded by the fact that employees could not appeal a griev-ance decision to a more objective arbitrator. The AFT wrote about problems with the grievance policy in the Septem-ber/October 2010 issue, the Novem-ber/December 2011 issue, and the January/February and April/May 2013 issues of The Advocate. The grievance policy was the subject of our speeches to the Board of Trus-tees in November 2011, September 2012, and April, September, and November, 2013. We even filed suit

Watch for AFT Lone Star

information, coming soon!


The Advocate

against the college for denying the right of represen-tation. In this past year, Dr. Head and the Board have rec-ognized the shortcomings of this policy and have gathered input from employee groups, including the AFT. We are very pleased to say that a major re-writing of the grievance policy received a first read-ing at the September Board of Trustees meeting. This new policy addresses all of the concerns we have raised and is a huge step forward toward creat-ing a more constructive approach to conflict that is more likely to resolve problems at the lowest possi-ble level. Adjunct Workload In the fall of 2013, adjunct teaching loads were dra-matically curtailed in what the AFT believed to be a hasty and mistaken interpretation of the Affordable Care Act. This change was not consistent with how other community colleges in the area were interpret-ing the new law. We were convinced that the cuts were unnecessary and unjustified. We wrote about this issue in the January/February 2014, March-May 2014, and November/December 2014 editions. We also attempted to address this issue in a speech to the Board of Trustees in De-cember, 2013, but we were denied the right to finish the speech (see more information below). We fol-lowed up in May, 2014. Dr. Head listened to our concerns and appointed Link Alander to study the workload issue carefully. When Lone Star hired its new general counsel, Mario Castillo, at the beginning of this summer, he added his considerable expertise to the study. We are pleased to report that, at the September Board meeting, the cuts to adjunct teaching workloads were completely reversed. Salary Caps For the 2014-15 academic year, senior employees’ salaries were capped by the previous administration. There was no clear rationale for the caps, although there was a sense that it was a money-saving move. The union addressed the issue in the November/De-cember 2013, November/December 2014, January/

February 2015, and March/April 2015 issues of The Advocate and spoke to the Board in May, 2014. We also spoke several times with Dr. Head. We made the case that senior employees bring to the table years of valuable experience, often mentor new em-ployees, and have a wealth of institutional memory. Again, Dr. Head and the Board listened, and the caps have been removed for this academic year while the situation is reviewed. Dr. Head agreed that he did not understand the philosophy behind the caps and that any savings are not significant in the overall budget. He appointed a committee to study this and other compensation issues. John Burghduff has been chosen to serve on that committee. We are hopeful that salary caps will not be reinstated. Salary Compression AFT raised this concern in the March/May 2014 and November/December 2014 issues of The Advo-cate as well as addressing our concerns to the Board in May, 2014, and to the Chancellor in several meetings. Recognizing that LSCS beginning sala-ries were not competitive, in Fall 2013, the college raised salaries for new hires. However, salaries for mid-career and senior employees were not adjusted, thereby creating a salary compression in which longtime employees were barely earning more than new hires. Dr. Head initiated a review of the situation and committed to remedying the compression problem. A solution is in place, but it will take two years to adjust salaries to eliminate the compression. Af-fected employees should begin to see relief in their October paychecks. We urge all AFT members who have questions about their status to contact AFT reps John Burghduff or Alan Hall directly. All other employees should contact the Human Re-sources Department. Use this link: < https://lonestar.service-now.com/ServiceCenter/home.do>. Click on HR Services and select Generic HR Inquir-ies. Job Reclassification The AFT was inundated with the destructive effects of Evergreen Solutions’ recommendations on re-classifying support and professional staff. We ad-


The Advocate

dressed these concerns in the September/October and November/December 2013 Advocate, with the Board in May, 2014, and with Dr. Head. It appears that everyone recognizes the nightmare created by Ever-green. Rectifying the situation is in progress, but the problem is extremely complicated and progress is slow. If you believe that you have been treated ineq-uitably, it is not too late to ask for a review. Public Speech to the Board of Trustees We all remember the night in December, 2013, refer-enced above, when then Board Chair David Holsey denied John Burghduff the right to address the Board, a violation of free speech. We consulted with our attorneys on this First Amendment issue and fo-cused on it in the January/February 2014 issue of The Advocate. We stood up and read relevant case law to the Board in February, 2014. The Board, under the new leadership of Chair Linda Good, has revised its policy and even increased the amount of time citizens may speak, and we do not anticipate any further denials of free speech. Workplace Bullying For several years, the AFT has been working with employees experiencing workplace bullying. We addressed our concerns to the Board in August, 2012, in the April/May and December 2012 issues of The Advocate, and, more recently, to Dr. Head. We are pleased that Dr. Head has sent the message to the entire system that all employees should be treated with dignity and respect. We still have a few indi-viduals who do not seem to have gotten the mes-sage. AFT is planning on presenting training regard-ing bullying in conjunction with the EEOC, and Dr. Head agreed to co-sponsor those sessions with us. Additionally, we have made recommendations to the Board at the June, 2015, meeting about adopting a policy regarding bullying and are hopeful to see a policy adopted in the near future. Transgender Rights This is an issue that we’ve been working on behind the scenes. Many of the colleges, universities and independent school districts in and around Houston include protection based on gender identity and gen-

der expression in their non-discrimination policies. Our policy does not include these groups, leaving transgender employees and students vulnerable to discrimination. A group of employees approached us privately and, working collaboratively with them, we drafted a revision of Lone Star policy to protect these employees and students. This proposal has been submitted to the Administration and is under consideration. We hope this change will make its way into Lone Star policy soon. In Conclusion What an amazing transformation! In just one year, we have moved from constant battles with the Ad-ministration and the Board of Trustees to working together to solve problems. There will, no doubt, be disagreements moving forward, but they will be han-dled professionally—with dignity and respect. The truth is that AFT Lone Star College wants social jus-tice for our students, our employees, and our com-munity. Who could be against that? John Burghduff Professor of Math, LSC-CyFair & Alan Hall Footnote: These and other articles from past issues of The Advocate can be read on our website, www.aftlonestar.org. Select News.

There is a Voldemort in Texas politics—That Which Must Not Be Named. Our Voldemort is collec-tive bargaining. Chapter 617 of the Texas Govern-ment Code explicitly de-nies public employees (including faculty and staff in public schools, col-leges, and universities) the right to organize bargain-ing groups to meet with their employers to negotiate

Does Collective Bargaining Matter?


The Advocate

contract issues such as wages, hours, and working conditions. In fact, even if the employer voluntarily chose to meet with such a bargaining group to nego-tiate, any resulting contract would be legally null and void. This regulation, in its current form, has been in place since 1993 but mirrors similar statutes going all the way back to 1947.1 The denial of collective bargaining rights, which euphemistically goes by the rather Orwellian term “Right To Work,” is deeply engrained in the fabric of Texas labor policy. In many other states the situation is different. Where public workers have collective bargaining rights, the employees of an agency (such as a school or college) can affiliate with a union of their choice and their employer is obligated to meet with them to negotiate contracts. This does not mean that the employees necessarily get everything they ask for, but their con-cerns must be heard. Many of us who have worked in Texas all of our lives have no experience with this scenario. Public employee unions exist in Texas and we ac-complish a great deal even without collective bar-gaining rights. Our own local, AFT-Lone Star Col-lege, is a good example. We welcome all staff and faculty, part-time or full-time, up to the level of dean. We provide representation on behalf of our members in resolving employment issues and pro-vide legal assistance when necessary. We also advo-cate for policy changes that benefit both employees and students. There are benefits available to mem-bers offered through our parent union, the American Federation of Teachers. However, we do not have the right to negotiate wages, hours and working con-ditions on behalf of Lone Star employees. Our abil-ity to bring about change lies in the moral strength of the positions for which we advocate, the numerical strength and diversity of our membership and the receptiveness of Lone Star College administration in considering our ideas. The question is, does having collective bargaining rights, or not, make a difference? Are there any measureable differences in the work lives of employ-ees who have collective bargaining rights versus those of us who do not?

Stephen Katsinas, Nathaniel Bray and Barry Mayhall from the University of Alabama have answered that question for a very specific group of public employ-ees—community college professors. In a study pre-sented at the National Center for the Study of Col-lective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Pro-fessions at the City University of New York in April of this year and reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education2, these researchers showed that collective bargaining does matter. The University of Alabama researchers focused their attention strictly on salaries—something easily measureable. They found that community college professors who work at schools that have collective bargaining agreements are paid substantially more than professors who work at schools that don’t. Ac-counting for other factors that influence compensa-tion, such as the region of the country and the size of the institution, they showed that the impact of collec-tive bargaining on compensation was statistically significant. Looking at community colleges that are partially funded by a local tax base, they found that full-time faculty members who worked in community colleges with collective bargaining arrangements earned about $95,000 in pay and benefits as a national aver-age, while those who worked in community colleges that didn’t have collective bargaining earned less than $68,000 in pay and benefits. We were particularly interested in one category of college they surveyed—suburban, multi-campus community college systems partially supported by local taxes. Lone Star College falls squarely into this category. Among community colleges in this category that do have collective bargaining arrange-ments, full-time faculty members earned an average of nearly $106,000 in pay and benefits. One must be cautious about drawing conclusions about a single data point in a sample without consid-ering all factors. However, for comparison purposes, the average total compensation for full time faculty at Lone Star College is between $87,340 and $89,940. (The average salary among 805 full-time teaching faculty is $70,940 and estimated benefits


The Advocate

for employees in the middle of the pay scale vary in value from $16,400 and $19,000, based on mari-tal status and number of dependents.3) The University of Alabama researchers consider differences in other factors across all of the institu-tions in their sample and conclude that collective bargaining impacts pay significantly. As Dr. Katsi-nas says in his interview with The Chronicle of Higher Education, “The differences are stunning. . . .Collective bargaining, in itself, matters.”2 Although when we think about collective bargain-ing we usually think about salaries, it is very often the case that pay is not actually the primary focus of contract negotiations in higher education. The American Federation of Teachers, with 1.6 million members in more than 3000 locals, is one of the largest unions representing teachers and other school employees in the United States. On our national website, www.aft.org, you can browse through the priori-ties our union emphasizes. Fair salaries are a priority but there are many, many others. Here are some ex-amples: • Academic Freedom • Shared Governance • Tenure • Adjunct / Full-time Faculty Ratios • Equity in Compensation and Benefits for Contingent (including Adjunct) Faculty • Faculty Diversity • Resisting the Corporatization of Higher Education • Health, Safety and Job Security for School

Staff • Workplace Bullying All of these issues can be shoved aside easily when faculty and staff have little say in the life of an in-stitution. However, they can be brought front and center in contract negotiations where collective bargaining exists.

Many of the issues listed above primarily relate to employees. However, in collective bargaining ne-gotiations, employees are frequently not bargaining for themselves but for their students. The recent contract negotiations in Chicago Public Schools, for example, were focused on classroom size and strengthening neighborhood schools.

Higher education (and education in general) has a bad habit of lurching from one fad to the next be-cause the voices of faculty, counselors, librarians, and staff of all types—the people who directly en-counter students on a daily basis—are marginal-ized. Where collective bargaining exists, admini-strations are compelled to discuss these issues with employees who see what works on the ground on a daily basis. Student success, for example, is the primary focus of community colleges across the country. “Experts” (many of whom have never taught a single class in a community college) criss-cross the nation, making speeches and selling prod-ucts. In contrast, consider the AFT’s official state-ment about student success as posted on our na-tional website: “The American Federation of Teachers believes that accountability and student success should be about making sure students have resources to learn and succeed: rich curricula, excellent facilities, tal-ented—and well-supported—faculty, and robust academic standards that are devised and improved by the people who deliver them.”4 This article on collective bargaining is not in any way intended to be a criticism of the current ad-ministration of Lone Star College. Our current Chancellor and Board of Trustees have taken the input and insights of college employees seriously. They are doing an excellent job of reaching out to all employee groups including our local chapter of the AFT. For this, we com-mend them. Another article in this edition of The Advocate discusses the remarkable steps the Administration has taken in the last year towards solv-ing long-standing problems in a collaborative manner.


The Advocate

Unfortunately, not all leaders in Lone Star’s history have chosen the path of inclusion, as long-term readers of this newsletter will recall. If you follow current events in some of our neighboring commu-nity college systems, you know that there are insti-tutions in the Houston area that continue to dis-count and marginalize their employees and, in the process, make gut-wrenching changes that seri-ously disrupt the learning process. It is easier for those colleges to do so because of the lack of col-lective bargaining agreements. In those institu-tions, college administrators have easily shoved aside employee input. Is collective bargaining for college employees sim-ply “that which must not be named” in Texas? Events in other parts of the country seem to point to the whole nation following the same path our state has trod. The most visible example is Wis-consin Governor Scott Walker’s brutal assault on the collective bargaining rights of public workers. However, other events hint that the tide may be turning. For example, similar attempts against un-ions in the state of Ohio were overturned by voters. Membership in the AFT, both nation-wide and in our local, is on the rise. Other unions that work in higher education, like the American Association of University Professors, are rebuilding and gaining new strength. Adjunct faculty in various places, with support from the AFT, Service Workers Inter-national, and other unions, are organizing to speak their concerns as one voice. Even college football players are unionizing at Northwestern University! Here in Texas, the population is becoming younger and more diverse. The decline of the middle class and the growing income disparity between the 1% and the 99% raise real concerns about the long-term economic viability of our state. Relentless cuts in state spending on education, including com-munity college education, threaten the access of working-class Texans to a better future. As these dynamics play out, we envision a tipping point at which citizens question a decades-old systemic ex-clusion of the voices of public employees who can help Texas solve its many problems.

Collective bargaining in Texas may be years away, even decades, long after this author’s career is over, most likely. However, seeds of change can be sown now. What can you do? • Raise questions both among your friends and

your elected officials about the rights of public workers, including the faculty and staff of com-munity colleges and, most especially, adjunct faculty and other part-time workers.

• Learn more about what collective bargaining really is in the modern workplace. Stereotypes of unions projected by their critics are skewed and outdated.

• Most importantly, join your local union. To-gether we already make an enormous difference just through the power of employees joining their voices together. LSCS faculty, up through the level of dean, and staff are welcome within AFT-Lone Star College. All are needed.

When enough people see that collective bargaining —yes, say it out loud—can be good for Texas, change is possible. The best is yet to come!

John Burghduff Professor of Math, LSC-CyFair Footnotes: 1. Exceptions can be made for police and firefighters upon

approval of voters from a given jurisdiction. There is also a specific exception for employees of the City of Houston.

2. Schmidt, Peter. “For Community-College Instructors, Unionization Pays Off in Bigger Earnings, Study Finds.” Chronicle of Higher Education. April 24, 2015: A14.

3. Lone Star College System data graciously provided by Cindy Gilliam, Chief Financial Officer.

4. www.aft.org/position/student-success


The Advocate

The great political scientist V. O. Key once wrote that voters are not fools. Some of the results from the last Houston Community College and Lone Star College Board elections might cause Key to qualify his statement, as Dave Wilson in 2013 and Ken Lloyd in 2014 were the most unlikely of win-ners. What happened in the 2013 HCC board election was a tragic farce. Wilson, a white charlatan, mas-queraded as a black candidate in a heavily African-American district. Following his victory, Dave Wilson admitted his intention was simply to let black voters assume he was a brother in a district where few whites resided. How did this scamp pull off a 5,961 to 5,935 win over an incumbent? It took pure “deceit” in Wilson’s own words in a post-election press conference. Wilson’s deception began with his campaign litera-ture that never showed his photograph on bro-chures or mail-outs. Instead of his face, Wilson took pictures of African-Americans off the internet and used the words, “Please support our friend Dave Wilson” in his campaign material. The ulti-mate Wilson chicanery occurred when he sug-gested that former African-American state repre-sentative Ron Wilson was endorsing his candidacy. This “pants-on-fire” lie was exposed when Dave Wilson admitted after the election that the Ron Wilson endorsing him was a white cousin living in Iowa and not the former state official. While Dave Wilson deliberately pulled off the po-litical trick of the year, the outcome in the 2014 LSC District 9 election might also test Key’s belief

in an informed voter. In his first bid for public of-fice, Ken Lloyd, an African-American, Democratic precinct judge, union supporter, and Obama backer, won by a landslide— without any trick-ery—in an overwhelmingly white, Republican, anti-union, and Obama-averse district. The story be-hind Lloyd’s victory seems like a political fairy tale. Early in 2014, the AFT tried to join forces with area Republican allies to find a business conserva-tive to run for the newly-created District 9 position. When no candidate emerged from the G.O.P. ranks, President Alan Hall sent e-mail messages to over 25 Democratic precinct judges in District 9 requesting help in finding a quality candidate to run in the 70 percent Anglo and Republican district. Hall’s e-mails received just two responses. Having Alton Smith in District Three and Art Murillo in District Four as AFT candidates, the union had no candidate to support in District 9, until retired Kingwood professor Dom Bongiorni filed for the office out of the blue. Bongiorni, a Republican conservative, said that he was running for the Board for one big reason: “Carpenter.” The Dis-trict 9 race was now shaping up as a run between two white Republicans, the labor-supported former LSC professor Bongiorni, and Lamar Casparis, the choice of some local Tea Party groups and the pro-Carpenter incumbent trustees. The big surprise and wild card in the campaign was Democrat Ken Lloyd. On the last day of candidate filing, Lloyd signed up and threw his hat in the ring. For me, the Lloyd candidacy created some dissonance about whom to support: the LSC-AFT Executive Board already had endorsed Dom Borgiorni, but the Har-ris County AFL-CIO had yet to reach a decision. In fact, when I read Lloyd’s AFL-CIO question-naire, it looked like it had been filled out by Randi Weingarten, president of the National AFT; Lloyd seemed completely aligned with our union values. As a member of the Harris County AFL-CIO screening committee, however, I was prepared to back Bongiorni over Lloyd. Before the official in-terviews, I did tell Richard Shaw, Secretary-Treasurer of the Harris County labor board, of my


The Advocate

openness to a possible dual endorsement of the candidates as either one would be a good addition to the LSC Board of Trustees. After interviews with Alton Smith, Art Murillo, and Dom Bongiorni, my problem was solved when Ken Lloyd missed his interview with the labor board and lost the opportunity for endorsement. With political heavyweights Casparis and Bongiorni locked into what appeared to be a two-man race, how did Ken Lloyd win the District 9 battle? Unlike the HCC deceiver Dave Wilson, Lloyd was himself appearing at a few candidate forums and other gatherings. It is unlikely that Lloyd intended to run a stealth campaign, but with little money and few group endorsements his cam-paign seemed just that. Had the District 9 voters known the facts about Ken Lloyd, his victory might not have happened. One Republican AFT friend

pronounced Lloyd to be a political savant for his ability to win in a college district so at odds with what he is and the values he holds. While Trustee Lloyd attributed his election win to the members of his church and personal friends, this was only a small part of the story of his land-slide victory of 19,484 votes to the 3,905 of Cas-paris and 3,882 of Bongiorni. What explains Lloyd’s massive win on Election Day 2014? Was it divine intervention? I think not. Several political factors worked in Ken Lloyd’s favor. First, no party labels appeared on the LSC ballot, so Republicans in District 9 had no clue they were voting for a Democrat. Had the “D” been next to Lloyd’s name, he would have been finished. Second, the ballot position was important, as Lloyd’s name appeared first, followed by Casparis and Bongiorni. This Lloyd-Caparis-Bongiorni bal-

lot order was the same order of finish in the race. Finally, a candidate’s last name, indicating racial/ethnic background can be a positive or negative influence on a voter’s choice. For some voters having little or no knowledge of the candidates, a surname on the ballot can be eve-rything in making a selection. In an obscure col-lege board election, which name might appeal more to uniformed voters from district 9: Lloyd, Cas-paris, or Bongiorni? —Lloyd’s for sure, as the last two names may have sounded strange or foreign to some people. When our current LSC Chairperson Linda Good ran for the Board, I would say to friends that, among the candidates, it does not get any better than “Linda,” unless your last name hap-pens to be “Best.” What can we make of the two surprise victories of Dave Wilson and Ken Lloyd? —That many citizens have the impulse to vote, but no accurate knowledge of the candidates. It’s a kind of ignorance that appears to be alive and well within both constituencies. I do chuckle to myself, however, in that “good” stupid did prevail in the LSC election over the “bad” stupid in the HCC contest. Bob Locander Professor of Political Science, LSC-North Harris

I think that all surveys (SENSE, CCSSE, etc.) should be done in EDUC 1300 and/or courses other than DS English, DS Math, ENGL 1301, and Col-lege Algebra. Reasons: • So-called “gatekeeper” courses are seen by

some as a barrier to student success because many students do not make it through the DS sequence or the entry-level credit courses.

• Because of that, a great deal of focus has been placed on strategies, interventions, programs, trainings, etc. to help students succeed in these courses.

Letter to the Editor


If you are interested in

membership, benefits, or would like to discuss a work-related issue, our AFT

Faculty and Staff Vice-Presidents are here to assist. Please don’t hesitate to contact

them. See the back page of this publication for contact information.

The Advocate

• Class time / instruction is a key part of student success. (I hope we all agree with that.)

• Taking class time to administer surveys in these course (especially when faculty aren’t given adequate notice that would enable them to create a course calendar to deal with the dis-ruption) is, inevitably, an action that is at odds with our focus on student success.

• I think most agree that these surveys provide useful information, and they should continue to be administered.

• Since EDUC 1300 is specifically designed to address “student success,” the surveys could be used to prompt a relevant discussion about the role “engagement” plays in success (especially the SENSE survey).

• Since EDUC is a required course for all stu-dents new to college, the survey would gather data from quite a large group, and it would pre-vent the “overlap” that happens when a stu-dents is enrolled in more than one class se-lected for the survey.

• If a more varied population is needed, then in addition to all EDUC 1300 courses, a few courses in the social sciences et al. could be added. This would add the perspective of stu-dents who have, likely, been enrolled in classes (with varying levels of success) for any num-ber of semesters/years.

Editor’s notes: The writer is a current LSCS professor who prefers to remain anonymous. SENSE stands for Survey of Entering Student Engagement, and CCSSE stands for Center for Community College Student Engagement.

Do you like reading The Advocate?

Check out our full archives of the The

Advocate on our website!

www.aftlonestar.org

The Advocate

Stay Connected with AFT Lone Star!

www.facebook.com/AftLoneStarCollege


GOALS

• To promote academic excellence

• To protect academic freedom in higher education

• To preserve and protect the integrity and unique identity of each of the institutions of higher education in Texas

• To protect the dignity and rights of faculty against discrimination

• To ensure that faculty have an effective voice on all matters pertaining to their welfare

• To secure for all members the rights to which they are entitled

• To raise the standards of the profession by establishing professional working conditions

• To encourage democratization of higher education

• To promote the welfare of the citizens of Texas by providing better educational opportunities for all

• To initiate and support state legislation which will benefit the students and faculty of Texas

• To promote and assist the formation and growth of Texas United Faculty chapters throughout Texas

• To maintain and promote the aims of the American Federation of Teachers and other affiliated labor bodies

BENEFITS

• $8,000,000 Occupational Liability Insurance

• provides security while teaching

• protection against litigation

• malpractice protection

• $25,000 Accidental Death Insurance

• Legal Assistance

• Free consultation and representation on grievances and job related problems

• Services of leading labor attorneys

• Legal Defense Fund protection

• Political Power

• Texas AFT lobbyists in Austin

• AFT lobbyists in Washington

• Representation at the Coordinating Board

• Support for local electoral work

• Affiliations

• Affiliated with the Texas AFL-CIO

• Affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers and Texas AFT

• Staff Services

• Professional representatives to assist and advise in processing grievances

• AFT research facilities

• Leadership Training

• Savings and discounts on goods and services with AFT PLUS Benefits

• Free $10,000 term life insurance policy for first year of membership

AFT-Lone Star College

Professional career protection and a

united voice at work Join us today!

Monthly AFT Dues

Membership in the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is open to full and part-time faculty and staff up through the dean level. If you would like to join or find out more information about membership, please contact any of the officers listed on page 20 of this newsletter, or check out our online information and application at:

www.aftlonestar.org

Membership Eligibility

American Federation of Teachers

Texas AFT

AFL-CIO www.aft.org www.texasaft.org

AFT Local Union # 4518

Full-time Faculty $40.00

Full-time Professional Staff $28.60

Full-time Support Staff $25.88

Adjunct Faculty & Staff $14.00


The Advocate

The union encourages employees to join because they believe that college employees should have a voice in their professional lives. We don’t encourage employees to join because they anticipate conflict or are already engaged in a conflict. In fact, if they are already embroiled in a situation, we are unable to help them. It is all too common for someone to approach the AFT and say something like, “I’ve been an employee for the district for several years, and I’ve just recognized the importance of joining.” Typically, following that comment is, “I’m in trouble and need help.” I finally lost track of how many times in the last year I’ve had to say, “I’m sorry, but member benefits don’t cover anything that pre-dates membership.” The in-dividuals to whom I had to give this message were invited to join and pro-

vided some advice on how to proceed with their situation, but assistance ended there. Were they members, a host of benefits would have been available. The AFT provides its members with advice and guidance as well as repre-sentation in conflict resolution and grievances. We have our own local attorney and can seek legal advice and counsel for members. We maintain a local legal defense fund. In addition, membership dues include, at no extra charge, $8 million in professional liability insurance for claims arising out of professional activities. Most of our members don’t join be-cause they believe that they may need the AFT’s help in a conflict. They join because they believe in the values

of the AFT— that employees should be treated with dignity and respect, that employees should help each other, that employees should have a voice in their professional lives, that employees deserve fair pay and good working conditions, and that the dis-trict needs a system providing checks and balances. They join because they want to support an organization that helps others in so many ways. A nice benefit is that, if they do need help, AFT is there for them. If you believe in these values and are not a member, now is the perfect time to join. If you believe in our values, take action now and join the AFT. —Alan Hall

We’re on the Web! www.aftlonestar.org

P.O. Box 788 Spring, Texas 77383-0788

Join the AFT

Call Alan Hall

281-889-1009

Call for Articles We invite all employees to send us their opinions, news, questions, and so forth. The Advocate is a forum for information and free interchange of ideas. Send your ideas. Send your articles to Katie Hurter, Editor via e-mail: [email protected], or submit to any of the following officers.

Alan Hall, President North Harris ACAD 217-G

281-618-5544

Stephen King North Harris ACAD 162-H 281-618-5530

Allen Vogt North Harris ACAD 264-C

281-618-5583

Rich Almstedt Kingwood FTC 100-G

281-312-1656

Laura Codner Kingwood CLA 110—D

281-312- 414

Catherine Olson Tomball S 153 - H

281-357-3776

Richard Becker Tomball E 271-D

281-401-1835

Janet Moore Tomball E 210 -E 281-401-1871

Van Piercy Tomball S 153-J

281-401-1814

Martina Kusi-Mensah Montgomery G 121-J 936-273-7276

Louise Casey-Clukey Montgomery B 100-G

936-273-7394

John Burghduff Cy-Fair HSC 250-G 281-290-3915

Cindy Hoffart-Watson Cy-Fair LRNC 101C 281-290-3265

Kathy Hughes Fairbanks FBC 218A 832-782-5063

Earl Brewer Fairbanks S - 13 832-782-5029

thus far we have come inside this...

Documents